Mitt Romney's VP pick lays out a road divided

Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick likely won’t do much to elevate the debate over the country’s vast infrastructure deficiencies as the two parties duke it out on the national stage. But it does set up a stark contrast in the vision for the country’s transportation network, even within the GOP.

The Paul Ryan selection solidifies potential scenarios: If Democrats emerge with the keys to the presidency and hold on to the Senate, the focus on sustainability and big vision items like high-speed rail will remain in view. But if the GOP emerges victorious, a Romney-Ryan ticket could gun for reduced federal transportation subsidies.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Ryan’s addition adds a policy focus to the race that had been lacking of late. His voting record and austere funding vision has added a wonky veneer to a GOP presidential campaign that had skirted transportation so cleanly that stakeholders and leading political figures started publicly clamoring for more attention last week.

There are plenty of conservative Republicans who favor robust federal infrastructure spending, some atop the congressional food chain. Ryan’s selection lays bare a division of opinion on the issue, both at the top and bottom of the ticket, to which the world of planes, trains, automobiles, ships, bicycles and pedestrians must now pay close attention.

GOP sources in the House familiar with the lower chamber’s transportation politics told POLITICO there is some concern about wholesale funding cuts but emphasized that Romney and Ryan are “fairly pragmatic people.”

One source noted that cutting big programs that affect every corner of the country is difficult in practice and even offered that the GOP ticket “could surprise everyone and try for a moderate gas tax increase — that’s unlikely” but not against conservative thinking. Another source predicted the potential executive office duo would “be helpful allies in reining in the waste within the transportation world.”

Ryan’s 2013 budget plan called for drastic cuts to transportation spending: In 2013 it proposed $47.1 billion for transportation spending across all modes, as well as the Coast Guard, TSA and a segment of NASA. In comparison, the House’s fiscal 2013 transportation spending bill would allocate $71.6 billion for transportation spending alone. When it comes to funding levels budget documents are non-binding but do serve as policy statements.

The basis of Ryan’s plan, particularly as it involved spending out of the Highway Trust Fund, held transportation spending to what can be supported by gas tax revenues. That means going from about $52.5 billion annually to about $37.5 billion.

That $15 billion difference between what gas tax revenues can support has already proven to be divisive within the Republican Party — the House GOP revolted in the face of a similarly constituted six-year bill last year, forcing Speaker John Boehner to reverse course. The 27-month law signed this summer originated in the Senate and keeps funding steady, making wholesale spending cuts an unlikely prospect on Capitol Hill.

That’s largely because plenty of Republicans in Congress would like to continue conservative programmatic reforms established by this year’s bill but maintain a strong federal presence in transportation policy — all senior members in positions of power.

That list includes Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the current transportation chairman; his likely Republican successor to the gavel, Pennsylvania Rep. Bill Shuster; and the Senate’s top Republican in charge of transportation spending, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe is particularly bullish on transportation spending and is fond of saying that “defense and infrastructure are the two things we’re really supposed to be doing up here.”

Readers' Comments (21)

Either Dems are grasping for an issue to run on, or Ryan hates Hispanics, blew up the Simpson Bowles Commission, stole Grandma's Medicare, and will destroy the highways of America? I mean wow, he gonna steal my Ice Cream too? Did the Obama campaign write this for you, or did you come up with it all by yourself.

The poll, conducted on Sunday and Monday, found 50 percent have a favorable opinion of Ryan, and only 32 percent hold an unfavorable opinion. That's an improvement for Ryan in Rasmussen's poll, which found 39 percent favorability and 25 percent unfavorability prior to being named as Romney's running mate.

A recent PPP poll found that both Romney and President Obama currently have lower favorability ratings and higher unfavorability ratings than Ryan. Romney's favorable/unfavorable rating in this poll was 42 percent/48 percent, while Obama's was 47 percent/48 percent. Polling of Vice President Biden's favorability has been less frequent, but a July poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal gave Biden a 35 percent/37 percent favorability/unfavorability rating.

That means of all four candidates on the major party presidential tickets, Paul Ryan has, at the moment, the highest favorability.

Let's hope that Romney/Ryan will be victorious so that we can put a stake in the heart of "high speed rail" which is a total waste of scarce fiscal resources!

Improving our transportation system is all well and good. That can be covered with federal excise taxes on fuel (a tax that could be increased to work as a disincentive to motor vehicles). But we waste billions on high-speed rail and other such projects that could go much further to improve infrastructure and provide more employment.

Where is the Democrat budget? Where is the evidence of work they have done? It is nonexistent. Paul Ryan worked hard and produced detailed budgets while Democrats jeered and lazed in their majority. Give me Ryan every time! He lays out a road we can follow, all of us together.

Where is the Deomocrat budget? Where is the evidence of work they have done? It is nonexistent. Paul Ryan worked hard and produced detailed budgets while Democrats jeered and lazed in their majority. Give me Ryan every time! He lays out a road we can follow, all of us together.

==================================

Hear! Hear!

The Romney plan is one that fairly distributes the pain and the cuts across the spectrum of interests. At some point we must cut spending and reduce the of government if we are to reach a position of fiscal security. We need a compromise plan that we can reach a consensus on. The Romney plan is such a proposal.

This doesn't mean it can't be modified, or negotiated. It certainly can be adjusted through the legislative process. But it is a good start and is generally fair. Its a matter of priorities. But the cuts must come, or we face ruin!

my biggest issue is the hypocrisy of ryan and for that matter romney and the entire republican brand!!!! never thought i'd say this, but i miss REAL Reagan Republicans! at least they had a soul(kinda) and were willing to work with him to get things done. Not only that, but REAGAN COMPROMISED!!!!!! look, i try and look at both sides of the coin. heck, i even contacted both campaigns and the rnc(through their websites) and asked questions. haven't heard back from ANYBODY yet, but we'll see. when the house & senate has a record number of republicans retiring or just not seeking reelection, doesn't that raise a red flag!!!!! i've seen the interviews and press confrences and i keep hearing the same thing, they are leaving because the environment is so toxic that NOTHING CAN GET DONE and they know it's their party that's holding up doing what is right and good for this country!!! if the republicans, and yes some dems too, don't get back to work, NO MATTER WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS, we aren't going to have a country. i'm tired of the extreme right(tehe3 & dvl)who champion the non-compromising republicans and who do nothing to offer commen sense solutions to everything. you need to compromise to get things accomplished that work and are good. this "my way or the highway" crap from republicans needs to stop. it's giving me a headache. you can almost see the utter frustration in the Speaker's eyes and his demeanor, he's tired and i don't blame him. cantor & ryan, along with several others, are holding this country hostage simply because they are sore losers and don't know how to play fair!!.. I HAVE AN IDEA. WHY DON'T WE MAKE A LAW THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT RUN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE YOU MAKE ABOVE $250,000.00 A YEAR AND THAT IS ALLLLLLLLL YOU GET. NO MORE TAXPAYERS GIVING YOU A PAYCHECK AND PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE. WHAT EVER YOU MAKE GOING IN, THAT'S WHAT YOU MAKE PERIOD. THAT WOULD CUT THE DEFICIT!!! AND WHY DOESN'T CONGRESS SHOW US THEY REALLY CARE AND PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE AND TAKE A PAY CUT? WHY AREN'T THESE THINGS BEING PUT FORTH AS IDEAS? BECAUSE POLITICIANS IN GENERAL ARE SELFISH. AND THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

If Europe shows us one thing it is that in times of slow economic growth austerity does not work. Why Ryan would hold on to this theory does not make sense? It is kind of an easy sell for him - "the economy is slow so we shouldn't spend money, we need to cut back". But time and time again in major economies around the world from Europe to Japan, this economic theory does not work. When you cut expenses, people lose jobs, which causes the multiplier effect to go into reverse, and tax revenues to shrink. That in turn causes the economy to slow even further, and a terrible cycle goes into motion.

Many Republicans are not even defending austerity these days as a plan of action to help the economy. They saw the mistakes that Europe made with cutting expenses during a slow economic time, and how that slowed their economies even further. If Ryan is holding on to this out-dated and flawed economic theory then he is either stubborn, naive, or both. The best time to cut spending is when an economy is in growth mode and is self sustainable. If anything the Government should be spending more money on infrastructure right now, and putting more people to work, so we can get back to growth mode. I get how everyone hates spending money and they are obsessed with the national debt. But there is a time and place to be obsessed with the national debt, and it isn't right now. Right now should be about getting people jobs. There is time to deal with the debt, and the process of reducing debt is a decade long one, it all doesn't need to happen in 2012, unless you want the economy to sink into a major recession.

the ryan plan is not a serious plan to anyone who can read. no specifics just ideas. the one idea they miss on is what to do with corporate welfare, which we spend more on than social welfare. that is the dirty secret in all of this. the GOP isn't serious about spending cuts you need only look at their position on defense cuts and doing away with subsidies for big oil.

It's a very clear choice. Obama/Biden to continue it's road to socialism and distribution of wealth to the poor, non working, welfare recieving. Versus Romney/Ryan, who want to embrace the capitalistic society that this country was built on for the last 236 years. Two parties going in opposite directions. One despising the hard working busnessman, the other congratulating the business owner for working hard and making a success for their family and their employees. True black and white differences in this election. Choosing Obama would be a sign that Americans are not willing to work hard anymore and are willing to give up their rights and liberties in exchange for the Gov't taking care of them. Choosing Romney should indicate that American citizens still believe in individual rights and the desire to work hard and achieve personal wealth. This election will state loud and clear where our citizens stand in 2012. At least those who bother to vote. Legally or not.

To ladiebnx: I hear you say it's the GOP obstructing progress in Congress, yet its the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in over 1,200 days. The GOP only took the house in 2011, and have passed two budgets, that the Senate refused to even work with. Furthermore the Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, not the GOP, the Democrats even had Super Majorities during Obama's first two years, the GOP didn't have the votes to hold up anything or Obamacare would have never passed.

To deleo: Europe trying to reduce it's deficits is not the cause of their debt crisis, that's just silly.

To massfreethinker: Corporate Welfare? Ryan's plan ends the special interest tax loopholes companies like GE use to pay no taxes, what you call 'corporate welfare'

In Paul Ryan’s home state, he supported US energy funds while decrying stimulus program

By Bryan Bender and Brian MacQuarrie , Globe Staff

JANESVILLE, Wisc. — In 2009, as Rep. Paul D. Ryan was railing against President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package as a “wasteful spending spree,” he wrote at least four letters to Obama’s secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by the Globe.

The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds -- one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show.

Ryan’s letters to the energy secretary praising the energy initiatives as he sought a portion of the funding are in sharp contrast to the House Budget Committee chairman’s image as a Tea Party favorite adamantly opposed to federal spending on such programs.

"Young Gun" Rep. Paul Ryan's Earmark Hypocrisy September 13, 2010 2:17 pm ET In an attempt to bolster his fiscal conservative bona fides in Young Guns, Rep. Paul Ryan criticizes a previous class of Republicans for "succumb[ing] to the earmark culture" in order to get reelected. However, Rep. Ryan is in no position to throw stones at others. The last time he was up for reelection, he obtained over $5 million in earmarks for his home state, including nearly $1.4 million for the "Ice Age National Scenic Trail."

Beyond The Budget, Where Does Paul Ryan Stand? BLOCK: Let's talk about where Paul Ryan is on spending because there were a number of votes he took under President Bush. He voted for the bank bailout, the TARP, voted for the auto industry bailout, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the highway bill including the Bridge to Nowhere. All votes that would seem to put him at odds with the Tea Party and his own vision of very limited government. DRUCKER: Yeah, and he voted for the auto bailout. And in his district, he had a lot of constituents who were employed on the factory floor of automobile manufacturers. He did support the prescription drug coverage added under the Bush administration. He supported TARP, which of course authorized up to $700 billion to help bailout Wall Street.

To massfreethinker: Corporate Welfare? Ryan's plan ends the special interest tax loopholes companies like GE use to pay no taxes, what you call 'corporate welfare' ___________________________________________________________________________________

Here's your Ryan votes on corporate welfare:

Ryans family made millions from government contracts. He was never poor, yet took full advantage of social security so he knows first hand that there are cheats in the system. Ever since, he has done what he can to extract taxpayer money from the taxpayer and put in the hands of the rich

Bush tax cuts- over $1 trillion added to the deficit to be paid by taxpayers at a later date

2 wars and Defense budget increase every year- well over $1 trillion to defense contractors added to the debt to be paid by taxpayers at a later date

Medicare D unfunded billions in future taxes to big pharma

TARP- $1 trillion added to the debt to be paid by taxpayers

Social security privatization plan- untold billions to be paid by taxpayers to investment bakers as mgmt fees for their 'personal' retirement account, with fees growing every year

Voted yes to transfer billions in medicare funds to private insurers out of taxpayer funds

Now wants to entirely privatize medicare and give more taxpayer money, this time trillions, to private insurers

Ask any conservative what the ideal role of government in a democratic republic is and he or she will tell you to keep its citizens safe and to protect individual liberties. How has repairing crumbling infrastructure, particularly roads and bridges, become a liberal idea? It just goes to show the party of Ike is gone, likely never to return.